[Reuters] Report: Bush Gave CIA Expansive Interrogation Power

deleted

 

That's wrong. The Presidential vote was a not a referendum on whether or not we should torture a terrorist to stop a nuclear attack. Extreme extrapolation doesn't do your opinion much good.

And (you know) NY wasn't the only place attacked, and (you know) you're not the only person to have lived in NY.

 

tell that to the victims families...i doubt they would agree

 

According to NJRocket ("America has spoken!") it was.

 

yeah...because NY has never voted democrat before right?

 

get a clue pal....that was in response to those who think that GWB is the only reason we are in this mess....and that Kerry would have done this or that...

 

Don't need anymore. You've given us enough. We know what you are...

Live with it.

 

do you have any of your own material?

 

Hayes, that situation hasn't happened, and people are still trying to justify the torture going on now, even thought it has happened to innocents.

I say in that situation you still don't use torture, but if in that one instance others said yes, that might be different. However we are talking about the real world, and events that have heppened.

Some Americans still hold the principles to be the same before and after 9/11. Others have abandoned theirs.

 

Your stance is that torture is never ok. I gave you an example where I believe the vast majority of people would say 'yes, it is ok.' Therefore it is not a moral absolute that torture should never be practiced. You believe otherwise, as is your right. But do not be so naive as to believe that all think as you do, or did before 9/11. When you say below that even in that most extreme example (NYC nuke about to go off) you would not do it, you put that single individual above thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands rights. The founders meant to protect individual rights, but not at ANY cost. That simply is a warped view of what this country 'stands for.'

Yes and no. First we are talking about your declaration that there is a moral absolute - which is incorrect - at least in the opinion of most people (I think I'm safe in saying that). Second we are talking about 'the real world' as you call it. If I had a terrorist that could have given me the flight numbers of the 9/11 flights, I would torture him or her and not lose sleep at all to gain that information. As it is while we can castigate this program as having also snared innocents, its also has undoubtably wrought information that has stopped further terrorism (although on what scope, admittedly, we do not know).

 

In the hypothetical that is provided, I would support the use of torture. Torture is never right, but sometimes necessary and there are cases where necessity outweighs right.

I definitely do not support the NJRocket view of torture and castrate anyone and everyone that looks Middle Eastern or is a Muslim because one of them might know something. That type of viewpoint is irrational and irresponsible. You do not torture someone solely on the basis of who they are, what they believe, or how they look. Thank God that most people don't think that way. If they did, then half of Alabama would have been picked up and tortured after the OKC bombing because half of Alabama fits the Tim McVeigh profile.

I also think that it is very interesting that NY voted for Kerry overwhelmingly after 9/11. NY is definitely not DC where they never vote GOP, although I will admit that it is rare for a Presidential Race (I think the last time they voted GOP for President was 1984).

 

If that is NJRockets view, then I would not agree with it.

 

My main point was to say that torture, while reprehensible, is not something that should never be practiced. The best source in the article Sam linked the thread to, the guy who started the program, points out that the scope of the program has grown too large and too ad hoc. NOT that torture itself is something that should never be used. I agree that it is a terrible thing when innocents are caught up in the policy, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

 

Actually I think most of the victim's families would be/are happy that their loved ones never sold out their principles. I would bet what they wouldn't agree with is selling out our nations principles and adopting the tactics of those that killed their family member.

You might be able to find a few who feel differently, but I believe that most of them would rather think that their family members died knowing that our country held the moral high ground over terrorists, not that our country was advocating the same tactics.

 

My stance is that torture is never ok, under any circumstance. I think their are certain things more important than life. The principle of never intentionally inflicting torture on someone is one of those.

As for what torture has brought us, we don't know that it has brought us anything at all. We do know that AG torture netted us next to nothing. Torture isn't right if it only manages to be used on the guilty, the fact that innocents have been caught up at all is reaon enough to halt all use of it.

The reason I said I might give leeway in the hypothetical of nuke in Times square hypothetical correlates to the analogy of the soldier who drops his weapon and runs off at the first sign of combat.

I would definitely think less of that soldier. I might not think it to the same degree if the soldier was told to wear a homing device and stand next to a target while a nuclear weapons was set to his location. That soldier that ripped the homing device off and ran, might not be the bravest individual with as much dedicaion to the cause, but I wouldn't think of him as a coward in the same degree that I would a soldier who ran at the first sign of real combat.

If torture for self preservation is ok in your eyes, then that automatically excuses a large percentage of the torture carried out by dictators around the globe. Undoubtedly much of the time it is used to secure and preserve their own dictatorial regimes.

 

Remeber the red scare? How do you know they didn't just pull names out of a hat. And when ever you give the government that kind of power, people in that government (on all levels) will eventually start to abuse it.

 

There are people comfortable in the ends justifying the means except when the means become their end.

 

No it doesn't. That's a terrible analogy.

 

You are the one that is justifying torture for self preservation. So why doesn't it justify all the dictators who use torture for their self preservation? That surely saves tons of lives of them and their followers, at least in the short term.

Or is this a case of where torture is ok if the U.S. or a country the U.S. likes does it, but it isn't ok if anybody else does it?

 

You really mean al the things you say?
My oppinion of the human kind has reach a new low.
So you think that torturing people is not bad? ass long as you get the information. And killing people who you think are a thread to you is ok. And finding 1 enemie at the expence of 99 innocent people being tortures is ok.
you know that is exaclty the way "terrorists" think.